Power Consumption of GPU with 144 Hz monitors

[ithehappy]

So I read about it, loads of comments, but none reached a conclusion. Some said yes, some said no.

Basic thing is, if I am to use a 144 Hz monitor (which I'm planning to buy), would there be any extra power consumption of my system mainly due to the GPU, in comparison with a 60 Hz monitor?

My system in short is 6700k, Asus GTX 970 Strix, 16 GB of RAM. When I play a game like Counter Strike Source or something the total power consumption of my system is around 150 watts (measured with a kill-a-metre), and this is with a 60 Hz monitor obviously. Now if I use a 144 Hz will that 150 watts increase? If yes, by how much?

Previous articles I read were completely confusing. Some said the GPU has to process twice as much frames, so notably more power consumption. Some said no, it completely is a feature of the monitor. I'm torn!

 

[cryoburner]

If you had v-sync enabled on the 60Hz screen, or otherwise had the frame rate limited to 60fps, then increasing the frame rate would likely increase GPU power consumption, since it would be rendering more frames. However, if you did not have the frame rate limited, and were already getting 100+ fps in the game, then those extra frames were already getting rendered, even if your previous monitor couldn't display most of them. In that case, your GPU would be doing the same amount of rendering. Any differences would likely be negligible if you already kept your frame rate uncapped.

 

[gasaraki]

Cryoburner is correct. Power increase would be minimal with 144 vs. 60 frames.

 

[ithehappy]

If you had v-sync enabled on the 60Hz screen, or otherwise had the frame rate limited to 60fps, then increasing the frame rate would likely increase GPU power consumption, since it would be rendering more frames. However, if you did not have the frame rate limited, and were already getting 100+ fps in the game, then those extra frames were already getting rendered, even if your previous monitor couldn't display most of them. In that case, your GPU would be doing the same amount of rendering. Any differences would likely be negligible if you already kept your frame rate uncapped.

I just checked this. In Nvidia Control Panel the Vertical Sync is set to "Use the 3D application setting", and in CS:Source the option labelled as "wait for vertical sync" is set to "Disabled".

Does these mean that I had V-Sync disabled?

I don't care if a negligible amount of power consumption increases in idle and while in-game (like 5-10 watts), but if it's really huge like some have mentioned then I would prefer staying with 60 Hz. Where I live the electric cost is pretty high.

 

[cryoburner]

I just checked this. In Nvidia Control Panel the Vertical Sync is set to "Use the 3D application setting", and in CS:Source the option labelled as "wait for vertical sync" is set to "Disabled".

Does these mean that I had V-Sync disabled?

Yeah, it's disabled. The Nvidia setting is just set to let your games decide, and CS is set to not use v-sync. If it were enabled, you would only be getting at most 60fps in the game on your current screen, and 144fps on a 144Hz one. Turning it on might save a bit of power and eliminate screen tearing, but can add a bit of input lag, which players of competitive shooters like CS would generally prefer to avoid.

 

[ithehappy]

Thank you good sir. You cleared the doubt I was having.

Now just one last question, my card is a GTX 970, Asus Strix like I said. And I'll be buying the following monitor, LC24FG70FQ. I'll have to use the DisplayPort from the GPU to monitor for full 144 hz capability or HDMI port?

 

[cryoburner]

Based on information from the manual for the 24FG70 monitors, it looks like that model should support up to 144Hz over DisplayPort, and up to 120Hz over HDMI.